Due to matters of a malfunctioning nature I missed lastThursday’s editorialin the Daily Telegraph which devoted itself to passing judgement on “that speech”. When comparing that load of tosh with Christopher Booker’sjudgement of the same speech in tomorrow’s Sunday Telegraph it can only be presumed that those writing editorials only gained an ‘F’ grade in their GCSE Logic exams – an opinion, I would aver, which is being extremely generous when considering their intellectual achievements.

The tone of this vacuous piece on Thursday was set by the view that Cameron’s speech was “well judged, elegantly phrased, persuasively argued and expertly delivered”. Really? It contained inaccuracies, the biggest of which was Cameron’s opinion of the relationship twixt the European Union and Norway, which meant that he explicitly ruled out what he, mistakenly, called a “half-way house”.

That he/she who wrote this apology of an editorial can write that Cameron’s wish to remain in a reformed EU can but cast doubts on not only Cameron’s understanding of that about which he spoke, but also the author of this editorial. What is it that either of them do not understand about the Acquis or the phrase “ever closer union”?

The fact that Conservative backbenchers were delighted with Cameron’s speech also can but bring into question doubts about their understanding of matters EU. One can to a certain extent understand Cameron’s wish to throw his dogs backbenchers a “Bone” on which to chew as that will, he hopes, negate him having to answer the worries and doubts of MP’s wives, who seem to invariably be making an increasing appearance in PMQs.

It is an affront to their reader’s intelligence to state that “it is a characteristic of the most ardent proponents of the European venture that they consider it dangerous to ask the people what they think”. Why should proponents of the European venture consider it dangerous to ask the people for their views when history has shown that on the only previous occasion the people were asked their views said proponents promptly “skewed” the debate by means of misinformation lies.

It is also disingenuous of Cameron to state “we need to safeguard our interests”, a statement that begs the question raised by Richard North, EUReferendum: “Who’s this “we”, Mr. Cameron?“. When considering our system of representative democracy – one in which for a set period of 5 years our political parties, on achieving office, can act with impunity regardless of the wishes of those they are meant to serve – the only “we” and “our” that Cameron is concerned with is himself. It is also a case that the statement “what matters most to Britain is best for Britain” should of course have substituted the word “Cameron” for “Britain” – or whoever happens to be occupying No10.

The editorial, in mentioning the 50th Anniversary of the Elysée Treaty – an “event” of such importance that it caused one of the postponements to Cameron’s speech, it will be recalled – would lead one to think that the only two countries involved in World War II were France and Germany – but again I digress.

That this editorial is not a work of journalistic excellence must be beyond argument; it belongs on the library shelves in the children’s section – filed under fairy stories!